TC 380 
. C7 

Copy 1 


THE EVOLUTION OF THE LIGHTSHIP. 

By George Crouse Cook, Esq. 


(Paper read at the Twenty-first General Meeting of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1913.) 






0 


•9 


?\ 


• • \ 


y 


m, ■\ 


[copyrighted.] 



THE EVOLUTION OF THE LIGHTSHIP. 
i By George Crouse Cook, Esq. 

[Read at the twenty-first general meeting of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, held in 
New York, December 11 and 12, 1913.] 


INTRODUCTION. 

Of the many writers who have discussed the subject of sea marks none appears 
to have assigned to the lightship a place wholly commensurate with its importance 
as an aid to navigation or an example of engineering skill. A visit to the Library 
of Congress, Washington, D. C., first indicated this, because I was there un¬ 
able to find the specific title “The Lightship.” Inquiry and search, however, yielded 
many references in the evolution of this aid to navigation, from which I have 
assembled the more important facts and endeavored to place them in logical order. 
This record is far from complete, but it is my intention to add to it from time to 
time until I have the full story of this bravest of little ships. 

The lightship is a beacon by day, a platform for the light by night, and a 
sound signal station in time of fog. As a day mark, it may have any form; it can 
carry a light which throws out an unvarying beam to the horizon, and bear fog 
signals of any type. Its efficiency in these capacities is established. In addition it 
has certain important functions which are indicated in the following paragraphs: 

The lightship may be stationed in deep water many miles from land, and mark 
a point from which arriving and departing vessels take bearings to proceed to 
their destination. The Nantucket Lightship, now moored in 180 feet of water 43 
miles from the nearest land, has been the landfall of transatlantic trade and travel 
since 1855. 

The lightship may be moored on shifting shoals and banks where no founda¬ 
tions for fixed structures could be laid. When the danger point of the shoal 
shifts, a corresponding change is promptly made in the position of the light. The 
Gull Stream Lightship on the Goodwin Sands off the southeast shore of Kent is 
an excellent example. Nantucket and the Goodwins, with other points, similar in 
many respects, have always been marked by the lightship. 

The landfall of the city of Milwaukee was marked by North Point Lighthouse 
only for many years. Many wrecks were due to vessels holding in to the shore to 
pick up the light and avoid running by the city. Now Lightvessel No. 95 stands 
three miles off the harbor entrance. It is an aid of strictly positive character, 
showing the approaching mariner a place of security rather than warning him 
from a danger point. His vessel will necessarily remain afloat where the lightship 


* 




98 


THE EVOLUTION OF THE LIGHTSHIP. 


itself is safely riding. He cannot run ashore when standing in to pick up the light, 
nor does his safety depend upon calculating his distance from the signal. The 
light showing the true way is more useful than the one merely marking a danger 
to be avoided. 

The lightship may be a place of refuge for a crew in distress. Small boats 
from a ship which has met disaster nearby may reach the lightship, when they 
could by no means live through the surf and reach the shore. In 1892 the French 
authorities recommended the replacement of certain lightships with gas buoys; 
certain of these changes were accepted by the sea-faring public without criticism, 
but against others the strongest protests were received. In the case of the Plateau 
des Minquiers the committee appointed to take evidence on the protests learned 
the cause. It was not the inferiority of the gas buoy’s light but discontinuance of 
the shelter afforded by the lightship in certain stresses of weather and tides. 

One of the necessary aids to navigation is the fog signal. The sound of a 
bell, whistle, or siren coming from a lightship well out from shore necessarily 
reaches vessels farther out at sea than those proceeding from the land. There are 
no sound shadows to lessen the effect of the lightship fog signal nor is any part of 
the sound wasted by being thrown inland. The lightship signal, however, is heard 
from the land, and guides the ship putting out from harbor, as well as that seek¬ 
ing its way in. 

The transmission of submarine bell signals is highly satisfactory from a light¬ 
ship. Their range and accuracy of direction give to this form of signalling addi¬ 
tional importance every year. Not only do these signals travel faster and farther 
than in air, but at the depth where the bell is hung their successful transmission is 
not prevented by the heaviest gale. Practically every ship of importance is now 
equipped with receiving instruments and enabled to pick up these signals from light¬ 
ships when all others fail. 

The lightship with the latest radio equipment is invaluable as a relay station. 
Its position, at the centers of the lanes of sea travel, enables it to pick up and pass 
on messages which otherwise would fail to reach their destination. This equip¬ 
ment also enables them to flash to life-saving stations notice of vessels in distress. 
During the winter of 1912 the most severe storm of years swept along our At¬ 
lantic coast. Many wireless shore stations were destroyed. The shipping on the 
coast sought sheltered harbors, but Lightvessel No. 94 on the Frying Pan Shoal 
hung on at her moorings, showed her signal lights, and transmitted all messages 
with absolute regularity. The radio fog signal is now in course of development. 

In many cases the lightship serves as a pilot station. An example is the La 
Plata indicating the passes south of the river of that name. “Pilots are always to 
be found on board.” 

The lightship has universal application. It can become mobile or fixed at any 
time as occasion requires; the moorings now in use make it practically permanent 
in its given place, while allowing it to be removed without trouble to another 
anchorage when this becomes desirable. It is available at any time to meet anv 


THE EVOLUTION OF THE LIGHTSHIP. 


99 


emergency. It has been moored near a lighthouse in course of construction and 
could be used again there if the lighthouse were destroyed. 

The lightship has been, and, no doubt, will again be driven from its station. 
Instructions, issued at Washington in 1829, direct masters “* * * not to ship 

or cut the cable, or suffer it to be done, in any event, and if the vessel should be 
likely to founder, to abandon her with his crew * * The lightship never 

voluntarily leaves its station. 

Many years ago Robert Hamblin proposed to substitute the lightship for all 
English lights. His proposition fell through, but not by inherent fault, because 
there are but few lights to-day which could not be promptly and satisfactorily re¬ 
placed by lightships. Its adaptability is general. There is no rock or shoal in river, 
lake or sea which cannot be efficiently marked by it. 

THE EARLY LIGHTSHIPS. 

The lightship is essentially a product of modern times. It had, as in the 
case of all modern products, a prototype in the ancient world. This was the 
Roman coastguard galley which existed in the last few centuries before Christ. 
The galley carried at its masthead an open framework basket in which a fire was 
sometimes burned at night as a signal light. The galley thus lighted and manned 
by an armed crew patrolled the Roman coasts and served as a guide and protec¬ 
tion to approaching vessels. But for such a patrol the pirates who invested the 
coasts would have carried their depredations into the very harbors themselves. 
The sighting of the light galley was therefore doubly welcome to the mariner ar¬ 
riving from a voyage. It showed that his destination was near and that his ship 
and cargo were safe from the elements and capture. 

After this brief record, then, the lightship, if so it may be called, sinks into 
obscurity for many centuries. The lighthouse, however, which was both its pre¬ 
decessor and contemporary along the shores of the Mediterranean, was continued 
through the Dark Ages as the sole aid to navigation. 

In these lighthouses illumination was effected by open fires of wood or coal 
without reflectors or protection other than iron frames which were sometimes 
placed around the fires to prevent dispersion of the fuel. The smoky gleam of 
these beacon fires was feeble at best and there was no attempt to reflect it in the 
proper directions. Often on stormiest nights, when the need of a light was the 
greatest, none was burning; and there was nothing characteristic in the fires them¬ 
selves to aid in distinguishing one light from another. 

In fact, it does not appear that any material improvement was made dur¬ 
ing the interval from the erection of the Alexandrian Pharos in 300 B. C., to 
the building of the Cordonan and the first Eddystone commenced in 1584 and 1669, 
respectively. 

Passing over this interval, then, we note that apparently the first plan for a 
sea mark other than these lighthouses was for a floating light off the English coast. 


100 


THE EVOLUTION OF THE LIGHTSHIP. 


Let me quote from W. J. Hardy, who, after making an elaborate study of the ques¬ 
tion, published in his book, “Lighthouses,” the following: 

“* * * j n 1629 * * * persons petitioned the king for license to light 

the Goodwin Sands. * * * After setting forth the dangers of the sands in 

the usual terms, they state that they are ready, in order to warn vessels of those 
dangers, to maintain at their own costs, ‘a light upon the main’ at or near the 
Goodwins, ‘whereby every meanly skilful mariner’ could, on the darkest night, 
safely pass the place of danger. * * * ‘upon the main’ must here mean the 

main or open sea, especially as the words ‘at or near the Goodwins’ immediately 
follow: that expression cannot refer to the mainland, 8 miles off at its nearest 
point, for lights at the two Forelands were then already established, and the ex¬ 
pression ‘on the main’ would not have been used if a tower built on the sand 
had been intended. There is, I think, but one way of interpreting this * * * 
that is, * * * for a floating light or lightship at the Goodwins.” 

It is therefore fair to say that the first positive sea mark contemplated by the 
English was the lightship, although the first Eddystone Lighthouse was fin¬ 
ished in 1700, thirty years before the project which ultimately established the 
lightship was put forward. 

By 1730 the work of lighting the coasts of England had been, to a great 
extent, assumed by the well-known Trinity House Corporation. The introduction 
of the lightship, however, is due to two men, Robert Hamblin and David Avery, 
who were regarded by that body as mere adventurers. Hamblin obtained a patent 
from the Crown in 1730 permitting him to establish lightships along the coast. 
Unwisely, he proclaimed his intention of displacing all other sea marks with light¬ 
ships, and the Trinity House looked upon his efforts as an infringement of its 
privileges and opposed them with all means at its command. 

The result was a general cancellation of the Hamblin patent, with excep¬ 
tion of the rights to a few stations which he had already sold to Avery. By a 
little diplomacy Avery obtained the good-will and co-operation of Trinity House, 
and in 1732, at the east end of the Nore Sands in the estuary of the Thames, estab¬ 
lished the first modern lightship. 

The characteristics of this vessel were those of a small fishing sloop (Plate 52). 
Two small lanterns, burning oil with flat wicks, were carried at the extremities 
of a yard. The light was dim at its best, and the lanterns were so defective that 
the flame was frequently blown out in stormy weather. Then, too, the violent pitch 
and roll of the vessel often snapped the lanterns bodily from their lashings, and the 
vessel itself chafed its hempen moorings and broke them again and again. 

In spite of these defects the first lightship proved itself indispensable. A sim¬ 
ilar vessel was stationed on the Dudgeon Shoal in 1736, and its lanterns were 
especially arranged to distinguish it from the Nore. Thus it appears that the now 
general use of characteristic lights for all beacons originated on board the light¬ 
ship. 


THE EVOLUTION OF THE LIGHTSHIP. 


101 


The breaking of moorings and loss of lanterns, so common with these early 
ships, led to the first improvements. These consisted in the use of heavier anchors 
attached by chain cable in lieu of hemp, and in the construction of a lantern which 
fitted bodily about the mast. Robert Stevenson, in his “Account of the Bell Rock 
Lighthouse,” speaks of this type of lantern as an innovation on his Bell Rock 
Lightship, stationed off the eastern coast of Scotland in 1807. There is, however, 
in the Trinity House Museum, London, a model representing a lightship built in 
1790, which is fitted with lanterns of this kind. It may therefore be, that either 
Mr. Stevenson was in error, or that this model represents the vessel not as built, 
but as it appeared after being fitted with the lantern invented by him. 

Disregarding these improvements entirely, however, we find that the lightship 
represented by the Nore and Dudgeon was firmly established as an indispensable 
aid to navigation. In 1790 the Newarp Shoal Lightship, presumably that referred 
to above, was stationed off Yarmouth, and in 1795 the famous Goodwin Sands off 
the southeast coast of England were marked for the first time, as they have been 
ever since, by the lightship. 

The question whether or not Robert Stevenson, the first of the distinguished 
Scottish family to devote his genius to the lighthouse service, introduced the mast 
encircling lantern, is of little moment in the view of the improvements which he 
added to it on the Bell Rock Lightship. His record of this vessel is also the most 
ample of any concerning these early lightships, and the paragraphs necessary for 
its history are well warranted. 

In 1806 the British Parliament empowered the Commissioners of Northern 
Lighthouses in Scotland to construct a lighthouse on the Bell Rock, a dangerous 
sunken reef to the north of the entrance to the Firth of Forth. The Act also 
authorized the collection of dues for lights immediately upon the location of a 
successful signal at the rock. 

In order to profit by the collection of these dues, the Commissioners decided 
at once to moor a lightship there. This was the first one on the Scottish coast. The 
work was intrusted to Robert Stevenson, who, as the Engineer of the Commis¬ 
sioners, was to direct the construction of the lighthouse. He purchased in Leith 
a fishing schooner, captured from the Prussians, fitted it out as a lightship, and 
gave it the name Pharos. The vessel was 67 feet length by 16 feet beam by 8 feet 
depth, and of 82 tons register. The hull was extensively rebuilt, three short masts 
were erected, sails were provided, and accommodations arranged for crew, light¬ 
house workmen, and officers. 

The lanterns were made in two complete vertical sections and so screwed to¬ 
gether as to encase the mast, along which they were free to slide up or down. Each 
lantern was then fitted with ten oil lamps having small silver-plated reflectors. 
The lamps were “agitable” or upon hinges so that they could be turned readily for 
trimming or cleaning. These lanterns, as a whole, were absolutely secure in their 
position on the mast regardless of the movement of the vessel. They could be 
readily hoisted, and the light could never be hidden by the supporting mast. 


102 


THE EVOLUTION OF THE LIGHTSHIP. 


Lanterns of this type proved so successful that they were adopted for all 
lightships, and only in the past few years have they been generally superseded by 
fixed lanterns at the masthead. 

The anchor of the Pharos weighed about one and one-half tons. It was of the 
mushroom type, and, to quote Mr. Stevenson, it resembled “in form, as nearly as 
may be, the vegetable from which it takes its name.” Fifty fathoms of ij^-inch 
chain and 120 fathoms of hempen cable were supplied, the cable being veered out in 
unfavorable weather. 

The vessel was placed on her station in July, 1807, and after several months* 
test was duly advertised as an aid to navigation. The lights “when seen from either 
side have the appearance of a triangle, but if seen end on, they appear as two 
lights, the one above the other.” Thus a distinctive light was obtained. The day 
signal consisted of a blue flag with a lighthouse in the field, and a bell was tolled 
as a fog signal. 

The full-bodied form of the fishing vessel, the absence of a cargo, and the 
weight of the lanterns aloft caused the vessel to roll violently. In spite of this the 
vessel held its station, burned its lights, tolled its bell, and produced revenues until 
the completion of the lighthouse early in 1811. 

The Pharos was another striking demonstration of the efficiency of the light¬ 
ship. In fact, the Pharos may be considered a developed lightship. After this 
date improvements came thick and fast, and the history of further development 
must consist in the general description of typical ships. 

The lightship may be considered as made up of the hull, the moorings, the il- 
luminant, the lighting apparatus, the fog signal, and the means of communication 
with the outside world. The evolution of the hull is made the chief subject of this 
paper, and it may now be traced to the present status. 

Before taking up these details, however, we may find it interesting to note 
how readily other nations followed in the use of the lightship with lanterns and 
apparatus similar to those on the Pharos. 

In the United States, lightships were first authorized early in the year 1819. 
At this time Congress made an appropriation for two vessels to be stationed at 
the Wolf Trap Shoal and Willoughby Spit in lower Chesapeake Bay. The vessel 
for the latter station received first consideration. As it was the “first object of the 
kind in the United States” great care seems to have been given all preliminaries. 
Many persons were called in consultation, and a strange variety of opinions was 
obtained. These ultimately resulted in the award of a contract on September 2, 
1819, to John Pool, Hampton, Va., for the construction of a vessel to make the 
“first attempt to establish a Floating Light.” In accordance with the contract it 
was “to be of 70 tons burthen; copper fastened, and coppered, * * * : to be 

provided with * * * a cabin with at least four berths, * * * ; and an 

apartment for cooking; spars, a capstan belfry; a yawl and davids, * * 

and so on in considerable detail. Chain moorings were supplied and some 30 tons 
of ballast carried. There were certain changes in design and delays in construe- 


THE EVOLUTION OF THE LIGHTSHIP. 


103 


tion, so that the vessel was not stationed until the summer of 1820. It was found 
to be too small for wholly satisfactory service in the exposed waters of Willoughby 
Spit, and was moved to a more protected station off Craney Island. A larger 
vessel was built for the original station. 

The idea of the lightship, however, seems to have taken a positive hold upon 
those in authority, and in 1820 three more were authorized for southern waters. 
One of these was detailed to replace the first vessel on Willoughby Spit. In 1822 
an appropriation was made for the first lightship off New York Harbor, at Sandy 
Hook. In 1823 $25,000 was made available for the construction of a lightship of 
not less than 250 tons to be stationed off Cape Hatteras. Thus the most dan¬ 
gerous of American shoals, the Diamond, was first marked, as it is to-day, by the 
lightship. 

Practically all of these vessels were most efficient aids to navigation and 
fully demonstrated their worth. At one or two extremely exposed and trying 
stations, moorings were frequently broken, and in 1827 the Diamond Shoal was 
driven ashore; but the lightvessel continued to grow in favor, and in 1841 there 
were thirty in service. Notwithstanding the number at this early date, there are 
but few illustrations or drawings which can be truly associated with a particular 
vessel of the time. These few, however, give a fair idea of the largest of these 
vessels, and enable us to understand the report of the master of an early Sandy 
Hook vessel, that it rolled so as to “heave the glass from the lanterns.” 

The French Government lighted the Talais Bank with its first lightship in 
March, 1845. It was of 80 tons, and carried a black day mark 14 meters and a 
fixed light 10 meters above the water line. A bell was carried as a fog signal. 

A plan of a Trinity House vessel of 1845 is given in Alan Stevenson’s “Ac¬ 
count of Skerryvore Lighthouse,” London, 1848. It was a vessel with bluff ends 
and wide flaring sides, and fitted with two bilge keels on each side. The dimen¬ 
sions were 80 feet in length on the water line, 21 feet in breadth at the deck, and 
a burden of 158 tons. The lanterns were octagonal in form, 5 feet 6 inches in 
diameter, and fitted with eight Argand lamps in the focus of parabolic reflectors. 
The moorings consisted of il 4 -inch chain cable and a single mushroom anchor of 
32 hundredweight. The crew numbered eleven men. 

Belgium’s first lightship was established on the Daedemarkt Bank in 1848. 
It was fitted with one lantern containing eight lamps having red lights. The lamps 
were suspended on the cup and ball gimbal principle. The moorings consisted of 
two anchors, of 17 quintals English weight, with 70 fathoms ground chain, and 
120 fathoms chain to the ship from a swivel at the middle of the ground chain. 
The vessel was also supplied with signals to communicate with the shore, a non- 
sinkable lifeboat, and carried a crew of eight men. During the first twelve years 
of its service, the ship remained on the station, except for absences for cleaning 
and painting, when in i860 the cable parted in a storm and had to be renewed. 

An equally important early French vessel is the Ruytingen which was stationed 
in the North Sea off Gavelines. The vessel was 82 feet length, 21^/4 feet beam, 


104 


THE EVOLUTION OF THE LIGHTSHIP. 


and tonnage of 150. It carried one light at a height of 34*^ feet above the water 
line on a mast located about amidships, and was moored by two anchors weigh¬ 
ing 2,650 pounds each. 

Another interesting and valuable record is that of the United States Lightvessel 
No. 1. It was the first constructed under the military board which for many 
years had direction of the Lighthouse Service, being built in 1855 at Kittery, 
Maine.. The ship began its service on Nantucket Shoal, where its light was the 
first, and, while its design was to an extent empirical, as was the case of vessels 
of the time, it proved a success in every way. Lying in as exposed a station as held 
by any lightvessel in the world, it stood the buffeting of the North Atlantic for 
many years, and is to-day on the important station of Martin’s Industry off the 
shores of South Carolina. 

So new lightships appeared here and there throughout the world, until in 
i860 there were approximately 136 in service. Great Britain came first with 48, 
the United States second with 39, Russia third with 12, then Germany with 8, 
Denmark and India with 7 each, Australia with 5, France with 3, Belgium and 
Sweden 2 each, and British America, China, and Turkey 1 each. 

These numbers have been further increased from time to time as the needs of 
navigation demanded and available funds allowed, so that to-day there are approx¬ 
imately 800 lightships scattered even more generally throughout the world. 

It may also be noted that Japan established her first lightship in December, 
1868; only fourteen years after the historical visit of Commodore Perry of the 
United States Navy. The vessel was of English design built by native workmen. It 
was fitted with a fixed red catoptric light in a lantern sliding along the mast, and 
served to mark the channel in Yokohama Bay. 

THE EVOLUTION OF THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE HULL. 

All vessels can fulfil two of the three leading functions of the lightship, those 
of the day beacon and sound signal station. The third, however, that of a light 
platform, is most difficult of attainment. And it is mainly with respect to this func¬ 
tion that the evolution and improvement of the vessel itself take place, and in the 
ship of to-day, steadiness and ease of motion are the first requirements. 

Many of these early ships were discarded trading schooners or fishing vessels, 
adapted to the service as in the case of the Pharos. They were modified, of course, 
to carry the lanterns and accommodate the crew, and sometimes carried ballast 
sufficient to represent a normal cargo. It is evident from the general type of these 
vessels, built originally to carry a load on a minimum draught, that they were ex¬ 
ceedingly poor light platforms. The light draught and small displacement with 
a full body and water line gave them a great metacentric height, which, combined 
with the weight of the lanterns, and, I believe, the general absence of bilge keels, 
caused them to roll excessively. The pitching was violent in proportion, and it is 
not surprising to read, as we do, of the lanterns being snapped from their posi¬ 
tions on the yard and the moorings carried away. 


THE EVOLUTION OF THE LIGHTSHIP. 


105 


The results obtained from vessels built to serve as lightships were but little 
better, for, strange as it may seem, the science of ship design dates from scarcely 
fifty years ago, and these ships were but the product of arbitrary judgment of the 
builder or designer. The chief characteristics of the vessels were much the same 
in all cases, and I found again and again reports of the trying nature of life 
aboard, and even of the discarding of a vessel, owing to violent movements which 
rendered it uninhabitable, to say nothing of inefficiency as a light platform. 

In 1856, a paper, “The Form of Stationary Floating Bodies,” was read at the 
Institution of Civil Engineers, London, proposing a circular vessel for a lightship. 
The discussion which followed developed a wide diversity of opinion as to what 
form was the most desirable. All the opinions expressed appeared to be founded 
on assumptions only. Scott Russell, the distinguished naval architect of his day, 
spoke at some length and said that he “would be inclined to give a lightship great 
length, with a safe but small section, and extremely fine lines.” 

Again in i860 the question of lightship design received serious consideration 
in England. A “Royal Commission on Lighthouses” was appointed to inquire into 
matters pertaining to the lighthouse service. In the course of its investigations it 
sent out a series of questions to the distinguished “scientific men” of the day, in¬ 
cluding Rankine, Faraday, Herschel, etc. One of these questions referring to the 
lightship called for “Opinions on the best form for the hull.” The replies were 
most varied, and showed the indefinite state of the science at the time. Some ad¬ 
vocated longer vessels, others shorter; some recommended much sheer, others less; 
some favored bluff bows, others sharp, etc.; while several advised circular hulls 
moored at the center of gravity. Among the advocates of the last was Professor 
Rankine, of the Glasgow University. 

A second question, “At what part of the vessel should the moorings enter,” 
elicited a variety of opinions; and hawse holes at a considerable height above the 
water, close to the water, and also under the water, were proposed. 

M. Leonce Reynaud, a former Director of the French Lighthouse Service, ex¬ 
plains the design of the early French lightships in his “Memoir” of 1864. He writes 
that “the vessels are narrow as compared with their length, so that they may offer 
as little resistance to the waves as possible; in the forepart of the vessel their lines, 
which below the water line are very sharp, spread out above in such a manner as to 
give them great buoyancy; the perpendicular section through the middle is almost 
rectangular; finally bilge keels placed on each side of the vessel run nearly the entire 
length, and are designed to reduce the rolling motion as much as possible.” 

So the lightship, as a ship, continued with all ships, as a product of opinion 
merely, for many years. To prevent rolling, it was sometimes fitted with bilge 
keels. Often there were so many that their efficiency was reduced, and they greatly 
increased the resistance of the hull and consequently the pull upon the moorings. 
Other excellent features of design, such as a ballast, for instance, were used 
to improve the performance of the ship, but used with such a lack of knowledge of 
their true properties that they actually impaired the general efficiency of the vessel. 


106 


THE EVOLUTION OF THE LIGHTSHIP. 


Beginning in the middle of the last century, elaborate series of experiments 
with ships and models were taken up in England and France, and served to estab¬ 
lish the true theories of ship design. An invaluable series of these experiments was 
that conducted on various naval vessels in England by the Admiralty in further¬ 
ance of the theory of stability, as brought forward by the distinguished naval scien¬ 
tist Froude in 1861. These experiments, extending over a period of ten years or 
more, proved to a great extent the relation of the form of hull, metacentric height, 
inertia, and rolling keels, to the movement of a vessel. The importance of these 
relations was gradually recognized, and they were made the basis of design for new 
ships. 

These relations were still further emphasized by another series, which was 
apparently the first conducted on the lightship itself. They took place in 1888 on 
the Nouveau Dyck stationed ofif the French coast near Dunkerque. The Nouveau 
Dyck was a converted fishing vessel, heavily ballasted, and it rolled and plunged so 
violently that it was practically uninhabitable, to say nothing of its poor qualities 
as a light platform. An exhaustive study of the causes of this excessive move¬ 
ment was then taken up. Many observations were made on the period of waves at 
the station, and it was found to be fairly constant. Then, observations on the 
period of oscillation of this vessel, which had a metacentric height of nearly 4 
feet, showed that it synchronized with that of the wave. Various trials proved 
that the vessel’s period could be increased most by raising and stowing the ballast 
at the sides of the ship. By this means the metacentric height was reduced to 2*4 
feet and the period doubled. The synchronization was thus stopped, and the vessel 
so improved in its performance that it was held in service. 

Repeated demonstrations of this nature so established the necessity of con¬ 
sidering these principles that lightships are rarely built now without preliminary 
investigation along the lines indicated. Individual engineers in different countries 
have often selected certain of these principles and featured them in their design. 
Bilge keels and inertia ballast figure prominently in the French lightship Le 
Sandettie, built in 1902. Some 16 per cent of the 341 tons displacement is in 
ballast, so placed in a deep keel that it adds greatly to the inertia and radius of 
gyration of the vessel, and, together with deep bilge keels, gives it a long period 
of roll. Le Sandettie has been made the subject of many interesting articles by 
its designers, and complete descriptions of the vessel may be found in the publica¬ 
tions of many of the scientific societies and nearly all of the maritime journals is¬ 
sued at the time of its completion. 

The form of a number of recent U. S. lightvessels is such that the 
wedges of immersion and emersion in transverse rolling approach equality, while 
the metacentric height has been reduced to a minimum of 12 inches, and the move¬ 
ment of the vessel thereby greatly steadied. Bilge keels have been fitted, without 
being featured, but inertia ballast has not been generally used. 

The ultimate object of design is, of course, to include the use of each element 
to the extent best calculated to control both rolling and pitching. For this pur- 


THE EVOLUTION OF THE LIGHTSHIP. 


107 


pose each must be made the subject of special study with reference to a moored 
vessel. During the past few years, Mr. George Idle has made many observations 
and experiments on the rolling of Irish lightships. In papers read before the 
Scientific Society of Ireland in 1911, and the Institution of Naval Architects of 
London, in 1912, he gives much valuable information on the forms and effects of 
bilge keels for lightships. He finds that properly designed and located bilge keels 
are of the greatest value in reducing both the amplitude and period of roll; and 
the results of his work appear to show that they are an economical and convenient 
means of obtaining the greatest results for the smallest expenditures. It is scarcely 
necessary to say, however, that bilge keels alone cannot make an ideal light 
platform of a vessel, and that the vessel of the future will include each element of 
design developed as Mr. Idle has developed the bilge keel, and in this work I shall 
endeavor to play a part. 

In the more practical features of design the same effort for improvement 
has been continued. These early lightships were built of wood, and some of them 
staunchly built. The English lightship at the Nore, built of oak and ash in 1804, 
was examined by Mr. Idle in 1889 and found to be in excellent condition. The 
U. S. lightship on Bush Bluff Station dates from 1849, and its oak is sound and hard 
and should be good for many years. These ships, however, are exceptions to the 
general rule. In 1856 the Fifth Auditor of the U. S. Treasury, in a report on the 
lighting service, states that the average life of a wooden lightship, as then built, is 
only five to ten years, with heavy annual cost for upkeep and repairs. 

The first marked practical improvement in hull construction was the substi¬ 
tution of iron and steel for wood. 

Iron was used as a structural material for shipbuilding purposes at an early 
date. In 1843 the Trinity House discussed and rejected its use for their lightships 
and it was not until 1857 that they adopted it in a vessel built for service on the 
Goodwin Sands. The Mersey Dock Board, however, was more progressive, and 
the first iron lightship appears to be that stationed by them on the North West 
Shoal below Liverpool in 1845. The vessel was 98 feet long and normally drew 
8 feet 6 inches. Its tonnage was 203. The hull was subdivided by three water¬ 
tight bulkheads, and fitted with a deep bar keel, and two bilge keels on each side. 
Three lights were carried at different elevations, and a lattice daymark was fitted 
on the mainmast. Notwithstanding the highly satisfactory performance of this 
vessel, many objections were made to the use of iron. It was feared that they 
could not be made strong enough to withstand the shocks received by a vessel at 
anchor in a rough sea; that they would suffer more severe damage than a wooden 
hull if driven ashore; that the interior of the hull would sweat and become damp 
and unwholesome; that its cost would be prohibitive; and that the bottom would 
foul very rapidly. In all but the last, experience has ultimately proved the oppo¬ 
site to be the case, but the wooden lightship continued in general use for many 
years. 

The advantages of iron as a structural material, however, were being con- 


108 


THE EVOLUTION OF THE LIGHTSHIP. 


tinually demonstrated in general shipbuilding practice, and were finally forced 
upon the lightship. Its first permanent use in the service came in a combination of an 
iron frame and wooden planking for the hull. Of these composite vessels, a typical 
illustration is that of the British Lightship Puffin, built in 1887 for the Commis¬ 
sioner of Irish Lights. The vessel was designed for an exposed station on a stormy 
part of the Irish coast, and special care was taken to make it both seaworthy and 
habitable. The length over all was 101 feet 6 inches, length between perpendicu¬ 
lars 93 feet 6 inches, moulded breadth 20 feet 9 inches, and the moulded depth 11 
feet 10 inches. The iron frame carried an inside skin of 3-inch teak, fastened to 
the frames by Y^-moh galvanized bolts and an outer skin of the same thickness 
and material, which is fastened to the inner with ^4-inch copper clenched bolts. 
Four bilge keels were fitted to reduce rolling. The moorings consisted of two 
lengths of ij^-inch cable, one of which was connected to a large mushroom an¬ 
chor, while the other was fastened to a Troatman anchor lashed to the side, and 
ready to be cut away should the first fail. The day signal consisted of two large 
balls, each 6 feet in diameter, mounted one over the other. The light was carried 
in a lantern house 8 feet in diameter, which encircled the mast and was capable of 
being raised and lowered. The light revolved and was operated by clockwork in 
the Tween decks. 

A variation of composite construction was that wherein the iron or steel 
plating of the hull was sheathed throughout with wood. By this means the interior 
of the hull is somewhat protected from the effects of sudden changes and extreme 
temperatures. The plating also is stiffened by the bulk of the wood against 
sudden local shocks or blows, which might otherwise bilge the hull. An illustra¬ 
tion of this sheathed construction is given by U. S. Lightvessel No. 43, 
built in 1881, which has given many years' excellent service at South Pass, La. 
The vessel is no feet 9 inches long, by 25 feet 8 inches beam, and n feet 6 inches 
deep, with a gross tonnage of 191. It has a complete watertight iron hull, carried 
to the main deck and entirely sheathed with 3 inches of yellow pine planking. 
Aside from this distinctive construction, the vessel is an excellent type of the first- 
class American lightship of the day, and while this sheathing serves its intended 
purpose, the advantages do not generally warrant the increase in cost of labor and 
material involved. 

A second variation of the composite construction is that in which the steel 
framing of the hull is covered in part with wooden planking and in part with steel 
plating. The U. S. Lightvessels Nos. 68, 69, 70, and 71 built in 1897 for stations 
on the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts were of this type. They are vessels of the first 
class in dimensions and characteristics. The framing, stem, stern, and keel, a bilge 
strake, and the‘topside plating were of steel. The entire bottom, from the line of 
the main deck down, was planked with white oak and sheathed with composi¬ 
tion. All have occupied stations of the first importance, and are still in constant 
use despite extended service on the Diamond Shoal and other equally exposed 
stations. 


THE EVOLUTION OF THE LIGHTSHIP. 


109 


The French authorities appear to have been cautious in adopting iron for 
lightship construction. It was not until 1891 that a vessel, the “new” Ruytingen, 
was built entirely of this metal. It was 30 meters in length, 7.82 meters in breadth 
at the deck, and of 338 tons displacement. A distinctive feature of design is the use 
of cast-iron bilge keels, which serve their usual function and have a secondary 
steadying effect due to the inertia of their “winged out” position. 

For a number of years from the dates just noted, both composite and wooden 
construction were in common use. Experience with the metal of the composite 
vessels taught the crews what care was necessary for its satisfactory preservation, 
and by 1900 authorities had generally accepted steel as the only material suitable 
for lightships at important stations. There were still, of course, some advocates of 
wood, and, as recently as 1902, a first-class U. S. lightship was constructed of 
wood and stationed off the Maine coast. This lightvessel, No. 74, is 118 feet long, 
28 feet 6 inches beam, 14 feet 7 inches deep, and of 495 tons displacement. Two 
cylindrical boilers and a single cylinder propelling engine of 380 indicated horse¬ 
power were fitted to make the vessel independent of a convoy, and in all fittings 
and equipment no expense was spared to produce the best results. The framing 
of the hull was of the best selected white oak and the planking of yellow pine; 
the hull is copper fastened generally, and sheathed to a point well above the water 
line. 

The lightship of steel construction, as illustrated by a recently completed vessel 
for the U. S. Service, Lightvessel No. 94, now stationed on the Frying Pan Shoals, 
N. C., is fully described and illustrated at the close of this paper. 

A second practical feature of design, which has greatly increased the gen¬ 
eral efficiency of the lightship, is propelling machinery. This alone enables the 
ship to proceed to its station without a convoy, and also to ease off the strain on 
its moorings by steaming up into a heavy storm; or to return to and stand by the 
station marking buoy in case the moorings are actually carried away. An earnest 
recommendation that vessels be equipped with propelling machinery was made 
to the British “Royal Commission on Lighthouses” as early as i860. It appears 
however, that the proposition received but little attention, and I find no evidence 
that lightships were so equipped before 1891. At that date three second-class 
lightships were built for the U. S. Service, Nos. 55, 56 and 57, 90 feet by 20 feet 
by 9 feet and 130 gross tons, and fitted with propelling machinery. This installa¬ 
tion was of but little power, consisting of but a single non-condensing engine, with 
a cylinder of 14 inches diameter and 16 inches stroke, and one marine fire-box 
flue boiler carrying 100 pounds pressure. But it was a proof of utility, and now 
many vessels of size, on important exposed stations, are fitted with compound en¬ 
gines and one or two boilers. 

The propelling plant of a first-class U. S. lightvessel in present service con¬ 
sists of a vertical, surface condensing, compound engine, with cylinders 16 inches 
and 31 inches in diameter, and a stroke of 24 inches, driving a four-bladed propel¬ 
ler 7 feet 9 inches in diameter, and of 10 feet pitch. Steam is supplied at 100 


110 


THE EVOLUTION OF THE LIGHTSHIP. 


pounds by two gunboat type boilers, 9 feet 3 inches in diameter, and 16 feet 4^2 
inches long. Under fair conditions some 360 indicated horse-power is developed 
and a speed of 10 knots obtained. 

The actual usefulness of such a plant has been again and again demonstrated 
in emergencies, and its absence has been the indirect cause of many a disaster. One 
such case was that of a German lightship at the mouth of the Elbe, which broke 
from its moorings and was driven helplessly ashore. All members of the crew 
were lost. The utility of the propelling plant may be better judged, however, by 
the fact that the U. S. lightvessel in the strong current of the Gulf Stream, over the 
shifting sands of Diamond Shoal, has steamed on an average of over 300 miles per 
month throughout the period of a year. 

Another important improvement in design consisted in fixing the lanterns per¬ 
manently aloft, and was suggested, no doubt, by their early increase in size and 
weight, which made it difficult to raise and lower them as required for their proper 
operation. This plan, also, is an old one. It was proposed in England in 1845. 
Reference to the files of the U. S. Bureau of Lighthouses discloses the fact that a 
similar proposal was made there at about the same time for a vessel with two 
lights fixed aloft. It seems this proposition was more favorably received than 
many early ones now so universal, for Major Eliot, of the U. S. Lighthouse Board, 
reported in 1873 the construction of a lightship in England fitted with a hollow 
steel mast containing a ladder inside for access to the lantern. 

A variation from the tubular steel mast is that of one built of angles or 
other structural shapes. The first of this type proposed is found on a plan sub¬ 
mitted to the U. S. Lighthouse Board in 1873 by Henry Lepaute, Constructeur, of 
Paris. 

Lanterns fixed aloft upon one mast or the other, of these types, are now gen¬ 
erally employed in all new work. The latest development of the open work class 
is used on the U. S. Lightvessel No. 44, which has been recently fitted with these 
masts, and stationed at Northeast End, New Jersey. The present tubular type was 
brought into current use by the French on the Talais of 1896, and it is similar in 
general characteristics to those proposed in 1845. Its use is also shown on the 
plates of the U. S. Lightvessel No. 94, published herewith. 

In all the main parts of the lightship meant to accommodate the crew, who 
spend their lives on board, and add to their comfort, the greatest progress has been 
made. One of the most important steps was taken in fitting the vessel with a com¬ 
plete upper or spar deck, extending throughout its entire length. Nearly all early 
ships were but single-deck vessels, in which the crew lived on a lower deck or plat¬ 
form below the water line. The first step came in the building up of the sides of the 
vessel forward, and the laying of a forecastle deck to protect the windlass, and such 
parts of the quarters as could be placed there. An extension of this forecastle, both 
in length and height, naturally followed, and in 1894 U. S. Lightvessel No. 58 was 
built with an entire upper or spar deck. In such a design, the quarters for both the 
officers and men are placed on the main deck, well above the water line, and they 


THE EVOLUTION OF THE LIGHTSHIP. 


Ill 


have the advantages of more air, lighter, fresher, and drier quarters, while the 
lower platforms are given over exclusively to stores. Not only does the spar deck 
improve the vessel in this respect, but also the higher freeboard adds greatly to 
the range of stability, and thus assures a safer and drier ship in times of severe 
weather. 

Beyond this point improvements have been made in all the lesser features of 
design adding to the comfort of those on board the vessel. On a first-class U. S. 
lightship, there is little lacking that could add to comfort and convenience in so 
small a vessel. There is a stateroom for each officer and each two of the crew. 
The vessel is steam heated throughout; fresh and salt water is carried throughout 
the ship in the most modern plumbing, for cleaning and sanitary purposes; baths 
and toilets are fitted; and it is quite safe to say that the crew find conveniences equal 
to, if not better, than those in corresponding positions in other employments. 

U. S. Lightvessel No. 94, Plate 53, which has been mentioned in the preceding 
text, may be taken as an illustration of the degree to which this type of craft has 
been developed. It was completed and placed upon station at the Frying Pan Shoal, 
N. C., in 1911, and still remains the latest and most highly developed addition to 
the fleet, although new vessels are now under construction which will be equipped 
throughout with internal combustion main and auxiliary engines. 

The vessel was designed under the direction of Mr. George Warrington, Chief 
of the Division of Marine Engineering, U. S. Bureau of Lighthouses, and pos¬ 
sesses the following general dimensions and characteristics:— 


Length over all.135 ft. 9 in. 

Length on the sixth water line, from the after side of the stem to the 

forward side of the stern frame..112 ft. 11 in. 

Beam, moulded.. 29 ft. o in. 

Depth of hold from top of main deck beam to top of keel amidships. 15 ft. 4 in. 
Displacement (moulded) at 12 feet 9 inches mean draught in salt water, 660 tons 
Signal light fixed white: 

Elevation above water. 68 ft. 

Range of visibility. 14 miles 

Candle-power .2,900 

Fog signal: 

Steam chime whistle. 12 inches 

Blast. 5 seconds 

Silent. 55 seconds 

Hand and submarine bell. 


The lines of the vessel, Plate 54, are the development of many years’ observa¬ 
tion on the performances of these small vessels as signal light platforms when 
moored at sea. The character of the body plan is such that the wedges of immer¬ 
sion and emersion in transverse rolling are nearly equal and the usual impulse of 











112 


THE EVOLUTION OF THE LIGHTSHIP. 


excess buoyancy is thereby avoided. Fore and aft the lines are full, and experi¬ 
ence seems to warrant the practice, although the argument might be offered that 
a vessel with finer ends would lift less quickly on a passing wave. The feeling 
among seamen, however, appears to be against a vessel which might be frequently 
awash in heavy weather. Further details of the form characteristics are shown on 
Plate 55 by the curves of displacements, centers of buoyancy, coefficients, metacen¬ 
ters, centers of gravity with varying conditions of load, etc., etc. 

The vessel is constructed of steel with the conventional structural elements, 
shown in Plate 56, of the midship section. The scantling throughout is much heavier 
than that required by any classification society for a vessel of the size, in order that 
the greatest practicable strength be obtained, as well as sufficient material to bear 
the heavy corrosion brought upon a vessel liable to extended periods of continuous 
duty in exposed waters. 

The arrangement of the hull, as shown in Plates 57 and 58 of the inboard pro¬ 
file and decks, is that of a continuous upper-deck vessel, subdivided below the main 
deck by watertight bulkheads into six general divisions. The first of these is also 
subdivided horizontally to form a trimming tank and store for paints, oils, and ar¬ 
ticles of a similar nature; the second compartment contains the chain locker, fresh 
water tanks in the hold, and general store rooms on the lower deck; aft of this 
compartment, and extending entirely across the vessel and to the main deck, is the 
coal bunker, which opens into the fire room through watertight vertical sliding 
doors. Another complete bulkhead separates the boiler room from the engine 
room, aft of which the vessel is further subdivided on the line of the lower deck 
to give an after trimming tank and lower-deck storage rooms. 

The entire forward section of the main deck is given to the anchor-handling 
gear which is of absolute importance in a vessel of this class. It consists of a 
manger, into which the main central hawse pipe of the mooring anchor and chain 
opens, and while plugs are fitted about the chain in the pipe, it has always been 
found desirable to separate this portion of the deck by a watertight breakwater, and 
drain the space by large scuppers as shown. Immediately aft of the breakwater are 
two plate foundations carrying the chain compressors and springs, from which the 
chains lead directly to a large double steam windlass of standard manufacture. 
The crew’s quarters are separated from the windlass space by a light divisional 
bulkhead and consist of staterooms for the men, galley, pantry, toilet, bath, and 
mess room. The gangways abreast the machinery room casing are fitted with 
work benches, tool lockers, etc. The quarters for the officers, who on a light vessel 
are usually workers as well as executives, occupy the after portion of the main 
deck of the vessel. The master and engineer have staterooms of considerable 
size, each fitted with desk, locker, wash basin, etc., while those of junior officers are 
nearly as complete. A chart room, pantry, mess room, bath and toilet complete 
this section of deck. The vessel is heated by steam throughout, and hot and cold 
running water supplied to the galley, bathrooms, and all officers’ staterooms. 

The spar deck forward is protected by a high bulwark which shelters the man 


THE EVOLUTION OF THE LIGHTSHIP. 


113 


on watch and the emergency fog bell. The latter is used when the steam fog signal 
is out of order. The forward deck-house supports the bridge and is fitted as a 
general chart and watch house; the after house is given over exclusively to the radio 
outfit. Two boats are carried in cradles on the spar deck as shown. 

The outboard of the vessel is shown in both the photograph of Plate 53 and 
the drawings of Plate 59. The chief characteristic and distinguishing mark, 
aside from the unusual sheer and freeboard, lies in the steel tubular foremast which 
carries a cylindrical lantern at its head for the protection of the signal light. The 
necessary rig is fitted for three sails, and topmasts are fitted from which a radio 
antenna is swung at an elevation of 82 feet above the water. 

The signal light consists of a fourth order lens carried upon a compound pen¬ 
dulum mounted upon gimbals in the lantern as shown on Plate 60. The adjustment 
of the top and bottom counterweights on the pendular apparatus, which is some 
9 feet 6 inches in height, enables a period of oscillation to be obtained much longer 
than that of the vessel itself, and the extreme movement of the vessel itself is trans¬ 
mitted to the pendulum in but a slight degree. The lens, therefore, stands quite 
steadily upright and shows a beam of light truly to the horizon except under ab¬ 
normal conditions. A fixed white light is shown, which is obtained by an incan¬ 
descent oil vapor lamp. This lamp consists of a reservoir of kerosene under a 
pressure of about 60 pounds, which ejects the oil through a heating tube, where it 
is vaporized and from which it is thrown as a vapor upon a mantle which becomes 
incandescent under the heat of the flame. 

More recent installation of similar pendular apparatus, made upon older ves¬ 
sels undergoing repairs, has the gimbal suspension made up of knife edges, and 
much more sensitive adjustment and correspondingly greater steadiness are thereby 
obtained. Such installations have also been successfully fitted with electric lights. 

The main propelling engine consists of one vertical, direct-acting, open-front, 
surface-condensing, fore-and-aft compound engine, with cylinders 16 inches and 
31 inches in diameter, and a piston stroke of 24 inches, as shown in Plate 61. 

Steam is furnished by two boilers of the Scotch type, Plate 62, 10 feet 6 inches 
mean diameter and 11 feet 4 inches long, carrying a working pressure of no 
pounds per square inch. The propeller is of cast steel with four blades, 8 feet in 
diameter and with 10 feet pitch. On trial the vessel steamed at 9.9 knots with 380 
indicated horse-power, and readily developed a speed of 9% knots under normal 
conditions with an indicated horse-power of 300. 

The performance of the vessel upon its station has been most satisfactory 
and with a metacentric height ranging from 17 inches to 9 inches between the full 
load and light conditions, a duration of period and range of movement has been ob¬ 
tained which is most satisfactory. The high topsides also render the vessel sea¬ 
worthy under extreme conditions, and the indications of the curves of statical and 
dynamical stability shown in Plate 63 are found to be fully realized in service. 


114 


THE EVOLUTION OF THE LIGHTSHIP. 


DISCUSSION. 

The Chairman :—In connection with this paper on “The Evolution of the Lightship” 
some of the members present must surely be from concerns which have built lightships for the 
government, and it would seem that they might be prepared to discuss this paper. A great 
deal of care and labor has been spent in its preparation, and we would like very much to have 
Mr. Cook’s efforts receive the appreciation of a good discussion. I did not intend, by refer¬ 
ring to the builders of lightships, to suggest the exclusion of those who had not built them, 
and some of our distinguished architects, both of the Navy and the merchant marine, might 
be able to discuss the points presented in the paper, particularly the one on which Mr. Cook 
asks enlightenment, the best form of hull and where the moorings should enter. 

Mr. E. A. Stevens, Jr., Member :—There is one thing I notice particularly in this paper. 
Mr. Cook asks for an expression of opinion as to where the moorings should enter the hull, 
or, in other words, the position of the hawse pipes. 

I happened to be looking over an old copy of the report of the Secretary of the Navy, 
which had an account of the loss of the Trenton and Vandalia during the gale at Samoa. I 
noticed that the commanding officer of the Trenton stated that the disaster was partly due 
to the location of the hawse pipes; whether he wanted them higher or lower, I cannot recall. 
The question, however, was raised, and Mr. Cook has raised it again, and I think it may be 
an interesting subject, not only for lightships, but other ships that are required to be an¬ 
chored frequently, especially in open waters. 

The Chairman;: —As a matter of historical interest, I will say that I cannot imagine 
the position of the hawse pipes had much effect on it, although I was not on the ship at the 
time of the disaster. I had served on all three of the United States vessels that were there, 
but I left the Vandalia a month and a half before the disaster. The fact is that the Tren¬ 
ton and the Vandalia went aground and pounded to pieces, and it would not have made much 
difference where the hawse pipes were. The position of the hawse pipes may have hastened 
the end, but it was sure to come in the terrible seas which were raging at that time. Is there 
any other gentleman who desires to comment on this paper? 

Mr. Arthur D. Stevens, Member :—I will say in connection with this paper that I 
had the privilege of repairing Lightship No. 4 last year, and one of the strong criticisms made 
was that when she would shear in a current, and bring her cable across the bow, she would 
list very seriously, lie over and be a long time recovering. I simply mention that as a criti¬ 
cism which the men on board made. 

The Chairman :—Was the hawse pipe too low or too high? 

Mr. Stevens :— I am simply giving you the criticisms of the men on board as to the heel¬ 
ing action that happened to be mentioned here, on Lightship No. 4 . They criticised it as giv¬ 
ing her a serious list when she sheared in the current, athwart the cable beam. 

Mr. Elmer A. Sperry, Member: — I do not know that I can throw much further light on 
this subject, as a whole, but one phase of it interests me, naturally. You understand that 


THE EVOLUTION OF THE LIGHTSHIP. 


115 


within the last year the world, especially Great Britain and the United States, has been doing 
a great deal of research work in the rolling of ships, and the question arises whether this 
midship section given on Plate 54 , as designed, is the best selection of midship section to resist 
rolling of an anchored ship. It so happens that our Navy has been pushing forward research 
into this problem further, I believe, than any other navy. This important work includes in¬ 
vestigations in determining the relations of shapes and body form to rolling. We all supposed 
that a log would not roll in waves—there is no form line or pendulum that the waves can get 
hold of. Naval Constructor Taylor finds, however, that there is a condition in which a log 
may be made to roll when subjected to the action of waves. In his investigation, which ex¬ 
tends over quite a large number of models, some of the forms of which were given in his paper 
presented at this session, he finds, I understand, that there is a large difference in the rolling of 
these models with a given wave force impressed. It would therefore seem to me that this, 
which is probably the most searching and far-reaching work on this subject that has yet been 
undertaken, and by far the most practical, as it has all been conducted actually in water, 
should be consulted before the final lines are determined upon for ships of this class. 

Professor Goold H. Bull, Member :—I had the honor of serving on the Trenton for one 
cruise and part of another, part of the cruise in which she was lost, and the hawse pipes were 
a source of trouble during all of her sea experience. We had to fit jackasses—jackasses are 
simply big plugs made of manila rope—these jackasses were fitted in the hawse pipes when 
we were at sea and at anchor. During a pampero in Montevideo Harbor, which was prob¬ 
ably nearly as strong as the gale at Samoa, the surging of the chain would loosen the jack¬ 
asses and they had to be fastened several times, but the water was coming in through the 
hawse pipes all the time. We lost a man during the anchorage at Montevideo through that 
cause. The loss of the Trenton was not due to that entirely, but to the fact that she lost her 
rudder early in the gale, and they could not steam out on that account, otherwise I think she 
would have been saved. From what I saw of hawse pipes placed low, as those were, on the 
gun deck, it was rather a faulty construction in that case. 

Mr. F. L. DuBosque, Member of Council: — It would seem to me that a lightship would 
require no hawse pipes; the factors which would cause a ship to change her position seem to 
be the effect of the currents, waves and winds, and it appears to me that the mooring should 
be attached to the stem lower than the usual hawse pipe permits. A line drawn between the 
center of lateral resistance and the anchor would seem to show the correct position of the 
attachment to the stem. 

If the fore foot were cut away as much as possible I believe yawing would be reduced. 
Our experience in towing shows that the tow-line should be attached to the towboat as far for¬ 
ward of the rudder as possible. If attached at the stern the rudder has very little effect. 

Dr. F. A. Kolster, Radio Division, U. S. Bureau of Standards (Communicated):—Mr. 
Cook’s mention of the possible use of radio signalling apparatus on lightships and in light¬ 
houses for the purpose of transmitting signals during fog is of great interest and impor¬ 
tance. 

The most serviceable and important field for radio-telegraphy lies in promoting safety to 
life at sea and aiding navigation. 


116 


THE EVOLUTION OF THE LIGHTSHIP. 


The lightship equipped with suitable radio apparatus is an exceedingly valuable signal 
station if properly operated and used to full advantage. During a fog, characteristic radio 
signals should be automatically sent from lightships and lighthouses. In cases where it is 
practicable to do so, the radio signal and fog-whistle could be simultaneously operated, thus 
enabling a ship within range to determine its distance from the lightship or lighthouse with a 
fair degree of accuracy by noting the interval of time between the reception of the radio 
signal and the fog-whistle. 

Signal lights fail in fog, the sound of the whistle is often deflected or reflected, but 
the radio signal is practically instantaneous no matter how thick the fog or how severe the 
gale. 


Mr. G. H. Blaker (Communicated) :—Several months ago the writer had a conver¬ 
sation with Mr. Cook concerning the installation of direct-connected electrically-driven oil 
units in lieu of the present steam plant used in lightships. 

The writer has had before him since that time the drawings and plans of a first-class 
light-vessel similar to the one illustrated in this paper, but has been so very busy upon other 
matters that it has been practically impossible to do anything else than outline such an in¬ 
stallation. 

As the writer understands the matter, it would take as minimum about 300 horse¬ 
power to handle one of the lightships. It would appear, therefore, that: the ideal installa¬ 
tion for the lightship, so far as economy of operation is concerned, would be to install that 
300 horse-power in two units—either two 150 -horse-power engines direct-connected to di¬ 
rect-current generators, or one 200-horse-power engine and one 100-horse-power engine, these 
engines to be connected at the switchboard so that they could be operated in parallel. 

The propeller should be driven by a slow-speed reversing motor, which could be con¬ 
trolled from the pilot-house, absolutely independent of the engineer, and therefore all that 
the engineer would have to look out for would be the engines, which would maintain con¬ 
stant speed under all conditions. 

As the writer understands the matter there are some days that it is necessary for the 
propeller to be turned over slowly, in order to keep the drag off the chains, or anchors, 
which hold the boat, and in that case the 100 -horse-power engine could be operated for 24 
hours, if necessary, at a minimum cost of delivering all of the power that is necessary to 
propel for that service. If the next twenty-four hours required twice that, the 200 -horse¬ 
power could be put into service, or, if the full power required, both the 200 and the 100, 
and the full power delivered to the motor which operates the propeller. The controller in the 
pilot-house operates in the same way practically as a controller is operated in the ordinary 
large street car. 

At the same time that the 100 -horse-power engine is in operation, such storage batteries 
as are required for lighting of the service lamps and the lighting of the vessel could be 
charged, and it might also be found practical and feasible to install a fair-sized storage bat¬ 
tery to operate the bilge pumps, the fresh-water pumps, and such light machinery as might 
be called upon for intermittent service. A motor-driven winch for hoisting the anchor could 
also be installed without much difficulty, and at the time that the power was not required 
the whole outfit could be idle for several months during the summer, if necessary, and the 
power could be available, by having the quick-start oil engine, in from two to three minutes, 
if it is required. 


THE EVOLUTION OF THE LIGHTSHIP. 


117 


In other words, as the writer sees the matter, it would obviate the necessity of carrying 
steam, at working pressure, 24 hours per day, seven days a week. It would obviate the car¬ 
rying of much coal, as for the same horse-power required the oil would weigh half that of the 
coal. Therefore, double the amount of energy could be stored upon the same ship in the 
same space. 

It might also be found practical, instead of running the large engine to charge the stor¬ 
age battery, to put in a small set, three or four kilowatts; for charging the batteries and for 
lighting the ship, it is quite possible that the smaller of the two large engines would run 
often enough to keep the batteries well charged. 

The electrically-driven propeller would make the outfit as flexible as any steam plant, and 
probably more flexible, and would be directly under the control of the operator in the pilot¬ 
house, so that instant action could be had at any time. With the installation of the two sets it 
will obviate almost entirely the possibility of a break-down. 

Mr. Cook (Communicated) :—Although not a member of the Society, I regret that I 
was unable to attend the meeting and in person express my obligation for the generous at¬ 
tention bestowed by the Secretary during the preparation of this paper, and the courtesy of 
the Chairman and the various members who have considered the question here raised. 

I should have been glad indeed to receive the suggestions of shipbuilders and architects 
who have built or designed vessels of this class, and would have presented such suggestions 
to the proper authorities in connection with the designing of new lightships now under con¬ 
sideration at Washington, so that a closer understanding between the two interested parties 
could have been reached. 

With reference to the loss of the Trenton and the Vandalia, mentioned by Mr. Stevens, 
I concur in the opinion of the Chairman that conditions will arise which may defeat the best 
efforts in design and construction, and we can but do our best to make the possibility of de¬ 
feat a remote one. Our Lighthouse Service met with such a loss in the hurricane of last No¬ 
vember, when Lightvessel No. 82 , off Buffalo, N. Y., foundered. The wreck has not yet 
been found and an adequate analysis of the causes of the disaster cannot be made; but the 
violence of the storm was such that many other and larger vessels were also lost. With 
regard to the position of the hawse pipe itself, I believe that the elevated pipe, as noted by 
Mr. Stevens, is decidedly objectionable in the case of a small vessel in a strong current. 

I had understood that Naval Constructor Taylor was contemplating a series of experi¬ 
ments on the rolling of vessels, and it is of great interest to learn from Mr. Sperry that this 
work is actually under way. Mr. Taylor has very kindly spoken with me on the form, roll¬ 
ing, and pitching of light vessels, and I trust that we may learn more from him as a result 
of these experiments, which are of so comprehensive a character. 

The entrance of water through the hawse pipe is a source of great annoyance on the 
modern lightship, as in the case of the Trenton, mentioned by Mr. Bull. Jackasses of va¬ 
rious pliable materials have been tried, but were ground to pieces by the movement of the 
chain, which, on a light vessel, is free to play over a range of several feet against the action 
of the compressor springs, shown on Plate 58 , with the surging of the vessel. A cast 
steel ball-and-socket plug is now being designed to attach to the moving chain in way of the 
hawse pipe, which, it is believed, will obviate this fault to a great extent. Several such 
plugs will be supplied to a vessel, so that if the chain is paid out hurriedly in bad weather, 


118 


THE EVOLUTION OF THE LIGHTSHIP. 


another may be attached to stand in the pipe at the point of final adjustment of the chain. 
These extra plugs will then be removed when the chain is brought up to its normal mooring 
length, and before it passes through the compressors, and they will then be stowed away for 
the next occasion. 

Mr. DuBosque’s suggestion that lightships be constructed without hawse pipes, and that 
the moorings 'be attached as far as possible from the rudder, is highly interesting. It is to be 
feared, however, that the relief gained from the annoyance caused by the entrance of water 
through the omission of hawse pipes would scarcely offset the many difficulties which would 
result from such omission, as changing the moorings, paying out extra cable in bad weather, 
etc. The correctness of his opinion relative to the desirability of attaching moorings as far 
as possible from the rudder is amply proved by the fact that this has become a nearly universal 
practice. In Lightvessel No. 94 , and most other United States ships, the actual attach¬ 
ment of the chain is well inboard, but the effect on the chain of the hawse pipe as fitted is 
practically that of an attachment at the very stem itself. 

The communication of Dr. Kolster touches on a project which, when perfected, will en¬ 
able vessels to determine their exact positions in the heaviest fog with great certainty. Dr. 
Kolster refers merely to that elementary phase of the radio-signal which consists in the use 
itself of the signal, but I understand that both he and the officers of the Radio Service of 
the Bureau of Steam Engineering, Navy Department, are working on the development of 
apparatus to indicate the direction of the source of a radio signal. Such an instrument, 
placed upon a vessel, may receive messages from two adjacent headlands or points, and by 
plotting the direction of each, the position of the vessel may be determined with precision. 

Mr. Blaker’s proposal to equip a vessel with an electric power plant is in the direct line 
of modern progress. The electric signal light and electrically-driven auxiliaries are being 
installed on the new vessels now under construction for the United States Service, and they 
are replacing other systems in the extensive overhauling of certain other vessels. Then, 
too, many ships are equipped with radio sets and electric ship light systems, so that it 
would be but one more step to use this power for the propelling system itself. I certainly 
trust that Mr. Blaker will place his proposal in such definite form that it may be submitted 
to the lighthouse authorities for serious consideration in connection with the designing of 
new vessels now in course of preparation. I feel that a project of this kind from Mr. Blaker 
could be carried out with complete success. 

I wish to acknowledge again to the Society my deep appreciation of the privilege it has 
extended to me in the publication of this paper, and express the hope that it may be the me¬ 
dium through which I shall be enabled to complete the story of this bravest of little ships. 

The Chairman If there is no further discussion, we shall pass to the next paper. We 
will now take up Paper No. 11 , entitled, “Strains in the Hull of a Ship at Sea and Those 
Measured while Receiving Cargo,” by Mr. James E. Howard. 


Pla-te 52. 


Ti ansactions Society Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 21, iqi ? 

To illustrate paper on “The Evolution of the Lightship ” 
by George Crouse Cook, Esq. 



THE t-ieiKTVHlP-VTi'2.. 

NOR,£ EnC^'-ANO. 

THE NOftRI 5 PETERS CO., W^SHIHGJOH, D. C 


From Hardy 













































QHAJjDuf -<g&i*tA€* ajSOK 







YQ^aH mot 





















Transactions Society A T aval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 21, 1913. 

To illustrate paper on <c The Evolution of the Lightship ” 
by George Crouse Cook, Esq. 



Plate 53. 





9 


U. S. Lightvessel, No. 94, Frying Pan, Stationed Off Cape Fear, N. C. 


















Transactions Society Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 21, 1Q13. 


To illustrate paper on '‘The Evolution of the Lightship,’! 
by George Crouse Cook, Esq. 


Plate 54 



/o 

9 

8 

7 

6 

S 


■U ' 1 ■ M I ! I 1 


id 17 Js *• ** « Jti is *4 

! M 1 l ! i . 8 





























































































































































































































































































Transactions Society Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 


I o illustrate paper on “The Evolution of the Lightship,” 
by George Crouse Cook, Esq. 


Plate 55. 


1913. 


E>ONdERN,PlE>PLRCEMENT S* OTHER CURVES, 

LIGHT-VES5£L_No_34 

















































































































































































































































































































































































































































Plate 56. 


Transactions Society Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 21, 1913. 

To illustrate paper on “The Evolution of the Light ship / 
by George Crouse Cook, Esq. 



THE NORMS PETERS CO., WASHINGTON, D. C 


IiiThUi 






i 

■ 1 




























































































































































































































































i\\ ' < ' 











"V • \ ‘ 

•' , r. . . 

■i -■!. •:. ■ 

' \ ' 4 .\ 


• ■ 


'Vi 




- 





■ . 


- 1 ^ ■' •. ■’ 

■ ■ ■* • • ' “■ 
i - •• ' ■ i 

»» Li 1 «, 

’> »• • - • 

»•-<- -. 

*■' ■ *' ' ■’ - 
' ' ■ *»- 

' • ! . - • , 

* ■ -w 


■v: . •' 











. • i ■ 

'• r « ■- j 











• *’ * flS/a.’ ‘ ff-’Vifl .*!* «l* r 




... .. . *sl ' 

. . — ,1 ' * : fv 



























































Transactions Society Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vo). 21, IQ13. 


Plate 57 . 


To illustrate paper on “The Evolution of the Lightship 



Inboard Profile. 


UPPER BOILER ROOM 


ROOM. 


ROOM. 


TANK. 


COAL BUNKER 


TANK 


THRUST RECESS 


CHAIN 


FIRE 


ROOl 


STORE} 

R ! SERVE T/I H. 


Spnr Deck. 


























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Transactions Society Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 21, 1913. 


To illustrate paper on “The Evolution of the Lightship ” 
by George Crouse Cook, Esq. 


Plate 58, 



9*! BOLLARD 




looker 


Jr! 2 MEN 


Lock® r. 


ENISl(<* cR 


COAMN& 


Fo« Whistle 
Encihc I 


SCUTTLE 


Hatch. 


Chaih 


UPTAKE 


LOC «C« 


Chain 


Byciers 


Hand Bu.sc PuHp 


Master 


SCUTTur. 


I £ MEN 


MAIN DECK 


ROOT* 


BERTI 


BERTHS, 



• 

===3 









Feeo&FiltehTank 


BUNKER 


SWAIN'S 


WORKSHOP 


TANK. 


HATCH 


[Chain 
l r».Pr 


BOILER 


HATCH. 


TANK 


PAINT 


Uptake 


fiTH WOOD 


Boards 


[Chain' 

l p .M, 


ROOM 


TANK 


SWAIN* 


Room 


'e roses 


LOWER DECK 


tank 


Ffceo watba Httrtn 1 - 


Grease Extractoi 





-- ... ... - .. —- —. . — -■ — 


r m r 


\ l 

TfTTTTTTTTTTTTi 







TH* «0*»/J PI r tut CO WASHINGTON. O. C 









































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































7 ransactions Society Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. zi, 1913. 


To illustrate paper on “The Evolution of the Lightship ” 
by George Crouse Cook, Esq. 


Plate 59. 


« 0 
IfM 


fftTTTTTTTTTTTT 



























































































































































































































































































































































































































































Transactions Society Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 21, 1913. 


To illustrate paper on ‘‘The Evolution of the Lightship,’ 
by George Crouse Cook, Esq. 


Plate 60. 


































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Transactions Society Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 21, J913. 


To illustrate paper on “The Evolution of the Lightship,’ 
by George Crouse Cook, Esq. 



tup tUVATION IQQMNfr fOSMA&B 


-7'10 z 

— SECTIONAL ELEVATION — 


— - END ELEVATION - L00KIW6 AFT — 


Plate 61. 



7‘iox 


8 ' 


>- 


WR.RK.r\G.E.MtKT Of Mwn Et^o-vnt 


Vei'Sse.l Md.94, 

SC.0.W1. 


THE NORRIS PETERS CO.. WASHINGTON, O. C 



























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Transactions Society Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 21, 1913 


Plate 62 . 


To illustrate paper on “The Evolution of the Lightship,’ 
by George Crouse Cook, Esq. 



T S. or ShtuPLurts 5 c.ooot»s 8 i»oibs. 

T& OF- FUfllsKSE-pURTCa 55000 To COOOo/Bs 

N NME 

size 

Worhing ?RES5«RE 

5HEU. 

4- 

P-- 1200#^ T6 14L8IBS 


«3 

TOFHtlWplMl 

.%«&■ 

p» 200 x f/s5H;r.)‘ ,,o lBS - 

I5-.TZ - 

tube Sect- 

J; 

l=fc ■4T5-3Z& XC.lfAa70o«» 


30 75 A .4 T5 , ' ,= = 

Furnrc c 

32. 

p- = I'M-Z.es 



C.C.BRCKPI.H1 


p= 'JCf l Q, 4 . , K.3UBS. 


*4 0 

C.C.CTK (jw /V 

«■ 

a 

«2S* 49< / 2C , , _ , n 

GIRDER FlHrf 

3» TS- 7 . 24 - * 7« Z-5 - -— 

Tophi BESTHrs 


* ' SJr A‘ A ° - - 6U* LSE. 


-*v 

C-C.SC 


Ss 7<7^*7Jr//e - -p7^,£is«, 

STHK5 

Z7S7-- ~ ‘-»e..T ■-«>=> 

CP. SLING 


2 X y X *7/&7J[/j o s. p,4ifllr -=*. 

SVHvs 

,tr - 


HC»rnsj«5 Sufrict 


9 r<9^ 

<35 S? 

9/ ^ 

TUBES = 

FURMRCES » 

COMPOSITION Chrmofr 

BflClfTUI3ETR|-PTTE 

- 


TOTAL 

o//ao ^ 

CRHTfStfRFRCE 

= 

3S /f 

*-* ^ 4C..S 

T" 

TETTf 

CotoRlN£T£« 

* 

77d 

<q.St :CflL. 

— 

±5± 


Srrre-r SSQ3£ “O c3 s /<=Ur>?SO / bJ . 

warsrt 7-fsr ■■ ^gs 


T30\L-E1 ^ PUF\TH 

U.’S-UG.HT Ve55LLKo.94. 

Sc R.E.E. T'q , 'r'ii, 3 "? 6"=1 rT ' 

TijnciNS is Pits E-uncx Duplicate Op Cor\j'T«^«c'P-»?S Di?hwinsNo < 36'M 


£ \,ir/=>cfifiT/orr is o 4 & s or r\37£f? x grr . or <z.ssnT£ r*c n four? 


rut NO*Hit ftfin CO, WAfHINOION, O. c. 

















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































. 

:• &SU > ft 4 - CV' 


H . . I 




























































































































Plate 63. 


Transactions Society Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 21, 1Q13. 

To illustrate paper on “The Evolution of the Lightship ” 
by George Crouse Cook, Esq. 




TH£ NORRIS PETERS CO.. WASHINGTON, O. C 














































































- 

, . r !\0’/j '.‘YiOru) '(’* 

























































































